tk_publish

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback nature, the absence of dependency capture, the path-resolution behavior with and without a PipelineConfiguration, the image-sequence semantics (token vs. copy), and the requirement that at least one frame must exist. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs beyond structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the most important distinction (fallback vs. native publisher) and then covers path resolution and sequence behavior. Every sentence contributes, though it is somewhat dense and could be more scannable with bullet points. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this level of conditional behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, the presence of a complex nested schema, and an output schema, the description covers all the decision-critical context: when to use vs. avoid, how paths resolve, how image sequences are handled, and the frame-existence prerequisite. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for publish_path and local_path (template resolution, explicit path fallback, sequence handling), but does not explain other parameters like name, step, comment, entity_id, entity_type, extension, or version_number. Coverage of the critical path parameters is good, but the rest is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Publish ONE file to ShotGrid') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its sibling native publisher by calling itself a 'FALLBACK publisher, NO dependency capture'. An agent can tell it apart from maya_session and other publishing routes without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly names the alternative ('maya_session(action='publish')') and the conditions that select it (Toolkit-managed Maya scene with dependency capture), and gives the exact scenarios where tk_publish is the right choice (non-engine'd/external file, World Labs/Gaussian-splat environment). This leaves no inference required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.